[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:02:32 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:48:30 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:41:13 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:37:25 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

I'm thinking of this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

Yeah. The more you look at it, the more you see. They want the State
to be secure. No mention of the people having security FROM the
State.

The intention is State security against outside agression. The means
is a citizen's militia. A "well regulated" one. Regulated by who?
Presumably the elected government. Thats what governments do,
regulate things. If you don't WANT regulation, fine. But the
constitution demands it.


Where does it demand regulation or does it infer that it would be
a good thing?

The words "well regulated" may be a clue.


Those words do not necessarily mean government regulations. A
well regulated clock is one that is functioning properly.

Individuals holding guns in the present ad hoc manner is clearly
totally unregulated. A well-reguated militia would be one that trains
regularly, obeys a command structure and understands the nature of its
potential enemy. It will also have strict rules of engagement with the
designated enemy. Private citizens taking pot shots at other private
citizens (for whatever reason) is the antithesis of well-regulated.

A good solution would be to allow continued gun ownership, but keep
the guns locked at the militia headquarters, to be distributed in time
of national need.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com